RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01708
		INDEX CODE:  128.14

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reimbursed for the amount of Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) deducted from his pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His pay was garnished for back payment of SGLI coverage he did not want, nor was he aware of.  He recently enrolled his wife and children in the DEERS program because he was activated under Operation Enduring Freedom.  He indicates that his family was covered under insurance from his civilian job.  Had he been made aware that he would be charged for an insurance coverage he did not want or need he would have never enrolled them in the program.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) for the period 15 March 2003.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 June 2001, the President signed into law approving Public Law 107-14, Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2001.  Within the context of the law, the expanded SGLI program was established to provide spouse and/or children coverage in the event of their death.  The coverage, by law, was automatic for all members of the Armed Forces who had a spouse and/or children, unless the member declined coverage prior to 31 December 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPS recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant was sent a letter concerning the new law.  The applicant was married prior to the implementation of FSGLI and had an eligible family member for FSGLI.  Albeit, the applicant did not enroll his family members into DEERS until he was activated, his spouse was covered under FSGLI since FSGLI implementation.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that he never received a notice referencing FSGLI.  He has had to move several times in the last few years and has always updated his records to reflect his current address.  He has cancelled SGLI coverage for him and his spouse and SGLI deductions are still being made.  He feels that he should not be obligated financially for coverage he never knew was there.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant had adequate time between 1 November and 31 December 2001 to make an election decision.  He did not provide any documentation to indicate that he was not aware of this change.  In accordance with public law, the applicant’s spouse was insured for $100,000.  Had the applicant’s spouse become a fatality during this period, the proceeds of the $100,000 coverage would have been paid to her IAW the new law.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01708 in Executive Session on 2 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 May 2003, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 1 July 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 July 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 August 2003.

				Panel Chair